Apple Ordered to Pay $506M to University of Wisconsin in A7/A8 Patent Dispute

[AdeFowler]

I have no problem with the verdict, but I do wonder whether a jury is fully equipped to decide on a case of such complexity. (Assuming the jurors are normal citizens).

I consider myself to have a good understanding of the insides of modern electronic devices, but I'm pretty sure that this case would have gone way over my head.

 

[kdarling]

I have no problem with the verdict, but I do wonder whether a jury is fully equipped to decide on a case of such complexity. (Assuming the jurors are normal citizens).

I often think the same thing... that patent cases should be decided by experts, not laymen.

As for understanding the patent, yes, a tough one. I attempted to give an explanation previously here:

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...-to-862-million.1928369/page-13#post-22095670

 

[jpu]

Go Badgers!

 

[Mirice99]

Apple really could care less about infringing on patents. I actually think they get a kick out of ripping people off.

Exactly, Apples business plan is to openly steal what ever they want, while fighting for years in court long after being found guilty.

 

[nt5672]

I don't care what school he attended. The willful arrogance of my former employer to continue abusing this deserves the extra fine. Sorry, but they willfully knew what they were doing and did it anyway. The stupidity behind this is Apple could have easily collaborated with the university [as it has in the past] and paid a royalty fee probably 1/20th or less for it.

Learn from it and change the policy is what the Judge is inferring.

Now it may be that Apple deserves this fine, but patents are not as clear cut as you seem to think. In fact just about everything is patented. Why? Because the patent office is only a bunch of clerks, not engineers, etc. In fact the patent office regularly allows patents with significant prior work (its not supposed to) and for obvious solutions, like the "click to buy" patent. Patents are also written and enforced for ideas never intended in the original patent, but the wording is so sloppy that judges allow it.

We have real problems in the Patent Office and like government regulations these problems are only increasing the cost of products and not providing any needed protections.

 

[apolloa]

Typical Apple business mo then... as said if they weren't so arrogant they could have saved themselves a ton of cash by paying for the patent use in the first place..

Apple must spend a noticeable portion of its operating profits on wasteful arrogant court cases and fines.

 

[iMi]

In unrelated news, tuition is going up again next year because this is America and that's how we do it.

Also, attention Alumni - please make a donation today!

 

[I7guy]

This is going to drag on for a few more years.
[doublepost=1501075444][/doublepost]

[doublepost=1501071531][/doublepost]

Exactly, Apples business plan is to openly steal what ever they want, while fighting for years in court long after being found guilty.

Tough to fault a successful business strategy. Eh?

 

[78Bandit]

If you read the summary, it says a jury found Apple guilty of stealing.

And if you read the summary, it says Judge Conley unilaterally more than doubled the jury's award for 15 extra months of infringement (from the original award date of October 2015 until the patent expired in December 2016). It is certainly reasonable to question that kind of additional assessment by one person with ties to the plaintiff when the initial award for infringement covered more than two years. I believe the number of devices sold with the A7/A8 chips between October 2015 and December 2016 is quite small compared to the number sold between September 2013 and October 2015 when those devices were new and cutting edge.

The questions about the size of the additional award are compounded by the second lawsuit UW has against Apple for the A9 and A9X chips. The iPhone 6S uses that chip and was released in September 2015. Damages for infringement after October 2015 would seem more likely to fall on those devices rather than the ones using the A7/A8 which only amounted to the cheaper iPhone 6 and the 5S which soldiered on as low-cost options. Judge Conley is presiding over that case too. If he is going to award an additional $272 million for 15 months of infringement by an outdated chip one can only imagine what he will do if the jury finds infringement on the newer chipset that sold a whole lot more units during the same period. This would cover the launch of both the iPhone 6S and the iPhone 7.

Maybe Conley is unbiased but he certainly isn't completely independent.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

How? Sorry you don't understand conflict of interest.

Given she has to pay a small fortune to attend, how is this a conflict of interest ? Prove she works for them or has anything to do with the university administration .

All the Americans posting in this forum are guilty of contract of interest as Apple is an American company .... guess it's easy

Anyway the keyword here is "jury" better check where they got their degrees....

Increasing the value/reputation of the school increases the value of her degree.

At least, that's what schools try to tell their alums so that they'll donate to the school.

 

[kdarling]

And if you read the summary, it says Judge Conley unilaterally more than doubled the jury's award for 15 extra months of infringement (from the original award date of October 2015 until the patent expired in December 2016). It is certainly reasonable to question that kind of additional assessment by one person with ties to the plaintiff when the initial award for infringement covered more than two years.

I believe the number of devices sold with the A7/A8 chips between October 2015 and December 2016 is quite small compared to the number sold between September 2013 and October 2015 when those devices were new and cutting edge.

Not a concern. Apple's lawyers would question the amount, if the extra months of infringement (plus interest) do not add up.

As an aside, this is useful info. From it, an analyst should be able to extrapolate how many of the iPads and Apple TVs with those chips were sold during the latter time period.

 

[farewelwilliams]

If you read the summary, it says a jury found Apple guilty of stealing.

University: "OBJECTION!"
Judge: "On what grounds?"
University: "Apple engineers that designed the chip have no relevance to the case!"
Apple: "But they're about to prove tha-"
Judge: "Objection sustained. Witness must leave the court immediately"

 

[tongxinshe]

Bachelor's degree from UWisc, check.
Juris Doctorate from UWisc, check.
Apparent conflict of interest, check.
Should the judge have recused himself, oh yeah.

Guess who went to University of Wisconsin? DING DING DING that's right, it's Judge William Conley.

What I wonder is, whether one of the designers worked for Apple who advocated the inclusion of this technology into A7/A8 graduated from UW, and maybe even know a contributor of the original patent.

 

[mi7chy]

That's a positive outcome. I'd rather see the money go to a Western educational institution than Apple bankrupting Western companies to steal their intellectual properties and transferring them overseas to be manufactured for less.

 

[I7guy]

That's a positive outcome. I'd rather see the money go to a Western educational institution than Apple bankrupting Western companies to steal their intellectual properties and transferring them overseas to be manufactured for less.

The money hasn't gone anywhere yet. Probably will take a few years to settle this all out.

 

[kdarling]

University: "OBJECTION!"
Judge: "On what grounds?"
University: "Apple engineers that designed the chip have no relevance to the case!"
Apple: "But they're about to prove tha-"
Judge: "Objection sustained. Witness must leave the court immediately"

I suppose this was an attempt at humor, but ironically Apple's engineers are quite relevant to WARF's case against Apple, because:

What I wonder is, whether one of the designers worked for Apple who advocated the inclusion of this technology into A7/A8 graduated from UW, and maybe even know a contributor of the original patent.

Dunno, but I did a search and at least 34 Apple patents referenced the Wisconsin one... starting back in 2007, about six years before the first infringing A7 processor appeared in use.

This means Apple was fully aware of the fact that they were infringing that patent.

In fact, WARF had been actively licensing this patent to others for years. According to their lawsuit, when they approached Apple about licensing, Apple said that they don't accept outside license offers and refused to negotiate, so WARF felt they had no other choice but to sue, which is an action they only resort to about once a year.

(Apple is well known for not accepting outside licensing queries. That's one reason we see so many lawsuits directed at them. It's about the only way to get them to respond.)

So it's actually a bit surprising that the judge didn't triple the amount for willful infringement. Have to go read the ruling.

 

[MH01]

Increasing the value/reputation of the school increases the value of her degree.

At least, that's what schools try to tell their alums so that they'll donate to the school.

An institutions reputation is not increased by an influx of funds. Unless u want to argue that these funds will lead to scholarship that will attract the best and brightest.....nope the best and brightest will still go to the top reputation institutions. By the time this money has any any impact, she will have missed any benefits of the reputation gain to progress her career.

And unless her university already has a very strong reputation for law, his is all pointless. An IT degree from oxford is about as useful as a law course from MIT......

Hate to say it, once you get to a certain level with experience , your university becomes irrelevant.

And given a jury made the decision..... the notion that this is a conflict of interest conspiracy level stuff.
[doublepost=1501101137][/doublepost]Of the poeple calling this conflict of interest, please explain.

 

[Captain Brainstorm]

They what what?

They covefefe?

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

An institutions reputation is not increased by an influx of funds. Unless u want to argue that these funds will lead to scholarship that will attract the best and brightest.....nope the best and brightest will still go to the top reputation institutions. By the time this money has any any impact, she will have missed any benefits of the reputation gain to progress her career.

And unless her university already has a very strong reputation for law, his is all pointless. An IT degree from oxford is about as useful as a law course from MIT......

Hate to say it, once you get to a certain level with experience , your university becomes irrelevant.

I'm not at all disagreeing with you. I was just saying that's what universities tell their alums to solicit donations.

And evidently, some alums buy it because universities receive huge amounts of donations.

I'm not saying the belief makes sense, but it could explain with a conflict of interest is coming from - it doesn't have to make sense for her to believe it and cause a conflict of interest.

Even if it were a jury, whose to say where the members of the jury were from? And further, are you suggesting that a judge has no impact on how a jury decides? If that's the case, then nobody should mind simply having the judge changed to ensure there's no conflict of interest.

 

[kdarling]

I believe the number of devices sold with the A7/A8 chips between October 2015 and December 2016 is quite small compared to the number sold between September 2013 and October 2015 when those devices were new and cutting edge.

While previously commenting that Apple would protest if it's not correct, I also thought that the second award was puzzling. So I looked into it. Turns out it's a matter of increased royalties:

The judge increased the royalty rate for any infringements after the first judgement in October 2015.

The award for infringement prior to the ruling was set at $1.61 per unit.

The royalty rate for continuing to infringe after the ruling, up through Dec 2016 when the patent expired, was $2.74 per unit.

---
I gotta say, that seems like a lot for a single patent. And makes the ~$10 that Qualcomm gets for hundreds of patents seem like quite the bargain.

OTOH, in the 2012 Samsung trial, Apple wanted $3.10 for pinch-to-zoom, and an incredible $2.02 just for the overscroll bounce. More recently in a 2014 trial, they wanted an average of $8 per patent from Samsung for stuff like slide-to-unlock.

What's good for the goose...

 

[macfacts]

And if you read the summary, it says Judge Conley unilaterally more than doubled the jury's award for 15 extra months of infringement (from the original award date of October 2015 until the patent expired in December 2016). It is certainly reasonable to question that kind of additional assessment by one person with ties to the plaintiff when the initial award for infringement covered more than two years. I believe the number of devices sold with the A7/A8 chips between October 2015 and December 2016 is quite small compared to the number sold between September 2013 and October 2015 when those devices were new and cutting edge. ...

Before the verdict, Apple could argue they didn't know they were stealing.

After the verdict, if they are still stealing, it is called willful infringement. Apple knew it was wrong but continued.